Abortion and the Lib Conscience (Lack Thereof)

[navygoat1998]

“I've noticed everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”


― Ronald Reagan

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Cindy

How is anyone forced to give birth by the government? Why is the government even in the equation?

Essentially, Libertarians fear the Pro-Life movement's assumption that abortion should be banned and those procuring abortion should be prosecuted. This equates to governmental seizure of pregnant women and the government forcing them to give birth. The Libertarian believes that such a difficult decision involving your body, your sovereign person, is between you and your God.

Liberty is often risky... make decisions wisely. The government isn't qualified to make such decisions. It shouldn't hold the power to force a pregnant woman to give birth... nor should it hold the power to force a pregnant woman to abort.

In my mind... the government's funding of abortion is the problem. No man should be forced to pay for something that has nothing to do with securing the boarders, protecting liberty, or protecting property if it is absolutely against his or her conscience.

[scotty]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

“I've noticed everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”


― Ronald Reagan

Love it

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by scotty

Love it

Everyone on every side of every political issue has already been born.

[Luke]

Seekerman a woman has complete control over her body but she does not have a soverign right over the body of the unborn child to destroy it. To illustrate the absurdity of this argument lets just say the baby being aborted is a girl if you let the mother abort the little baby girl you just took that girls soverign right to her body away and gave it someone else.

So who is denying the girls soverign rights to her body?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Luke

Seekerman a woman has complete control over her body but she does not have a soverign right over the body of the unborn child to destroy it. To illustrate the absurdity of this argument lets just say the baby being aborted is a girl if you let the mother abort the little baby girl you just took that girls soverign right to her body away and gave it someone else.

So who is denying the girls soverign rights to her body?

Is your answer having the state force her to give birth against her will? That's essentially seizing the pregnant woman's person. If you DON'T advocate the GOVERNMENT forcing a pregnant woman to give birth... then obviously you support a pregnant woman's right not to give birth, even if you personally would oppose the decision for religious reasons.

Let's put it to the test... a pregnant woman speaks to her doctor and requests an abortion. Would she be permitted to legally terminate her pregnancy through abortion? Or would the GOVERNMENT deny her that right? If it would deny her that right... to what end? Giving birth? If so... the government forced her to give birth against her will.

If a woman has a sovereign right over her body... that includes what is in her body also. This is the only rational alternative to GOVERNMENT forcing women to give birth at the barrel of legality.

Now... I also disagree with abortion. I don't believe it's the right choice to make. However, I don't want to empower the GOVERNMENT to force women to give birth or to meddle in very complex medical decisions. I'd rather focus on educating women and finding charitable ways to address the concerns they face, especially women facing unplanned or crisis pregnancies.

Just because abortion is legal... it doesn't mean we support it in all cases or do nothing. We seek to lovingly address the fears, circumstances, and concerns women who are considering abortion might be facing. In doing this... we advocate choosing life.

People are cheap. They want to ban something and assume a problem is resolved. No... that's a very shallow resolution to an extremely complex problem.

[Luke]

Seekerman you totaly skipped over my whole argument and make no attempt to refute it. Also what about the babies rights? We as americans have the right to life not the right to end life!

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Everyone on every side of every political issue has already been born.

Yes.


But they need to be born again.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Is your answer having the state force her to give birth against her will? That's essentially seizing the pregnant woman's person. If you DON'T advocate the GOVERNMENT forcing a pregnant woman to give birth... then obviously you support a pregnant woman's right not to give birth, even if you personally would oppose the decision for religious reasons.

Let's put it to the test... a pregnant woman speaks to her doctor and requests an abortion. Would she be permitted to legally terminate her pregnancy through abortion? Or would the GOVERNMENT deny her that right? If it would deny her that right... to what end? Giving birth? If so... the government forced her to give birth against her will.

If a woman has a sovereign right over her body... that includes what is in her body also. This is the only rational alternative to GOVERNMENT forcing women to give birth at the barrel of legality.

Now... I also disagree with abortion. I don't believe it's the right choice to make. However, I don't want to empower the GOVERNMENT to force women to give birth or to meddle in very complex medical decisions. I'd rather focus on educating women and finding charitable ways to address the concerns they face, especially women facing unplanned or crisis pregnancies.

Just because abortion is legal... it doesn't mean we support it in all cases or do nothing. We seek to lovingly address the fears, circumstances, and concerns women who are considering abortion might be facing. In doing this... we advocate choosing life.

People are cheap. They want to ban something and assume a problem is resolved. No... that's a very shallow resolution to an extremely complex problem.

How can the government force someone to give birth? Please explain that to me. By refusing to allow a woman the option of abortion? The government is involved because one ignorant person convinced other ignorant people that abortion should be legal. The SCOTUS should never have ruled on the issue.

[deacon blues]

Aquila, the woman exercises sovereignty over her body when she allows a man to inseminate her through copulation. There's a disconnect that somehow there's having sex and then there's having a baby. It's a cause and effect issue. There's a reason why women get pregnant---and I can't believe I have to explain this to an adult---but it's sex. And with the exception of rape or incest, there's a freewill, sovereign, choice made to have sex. And with that choice is the potential to get pregnant unless the woman is fixed or the man is fixed.

Once pregnant, there are TWO bodies and TWO sets of rights---one should have not the right to kill the other. And if women don't want to be told what to do with the bodies of their babies, then get your tubes tied---or have your man get sterilized---OR DON'T HAVE SEX if you don't want a baby!

One function of our government is protect and serve all it's citizens. America is built on the notion of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. LIFE = everyone has a right to life. LIBERTY = everyone should have the freedom to live. PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS = how can one pursue happiness of we kill them before they get the chance.

Babies deserve the protection of the government---even if that protection is from the baby's mother.